I work in a room full of journalists. They are print people. They work day and night to meet a deadline. Each day a new deadline.
At some point in the last 15 to 20 years they were introduced to the internet. From what I can tell it was a slow introduction that recently was accelerated by the shift in the economy.
A room of journalists, I can only assume, is much like other rooms full of print journalists working under the constant question of what the future will hold.
At this point theories abound. And none of them is an obvious large revenue generator. So the journalists separate themselves from the thought of how their mission will be funded and focus on the quality of their work and try their hand at learning a new skill set: the evolving beast that is the World Wide Web.
I find myself in a lucky position. I am a entertainment editor working fully online. Each day, I function in an environment fueled more by the hope of finding the link to the newspapers of the future than the guarantee of a big payoff. Of course, there is a hope that the link will be the payoff.
I can not speak to how my coworkers feel. I can only relate my own anxieties and hopes about the future. But let me make this clear: while there is a lot of anxiety, there is as much, if not more, hope.
Some may brush off my hope off as misguided enthusiasm. And they are welcome to do so, but as Janis Joplin once sang, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
The shift in newspaper revenue, while devastating for many, maybe what was necessary for news generators at all levels to look at their processes and procedures and put innovation before income.
-- Chrissy Clary, Editor
Three8six.com
u have been the missing link
Uh, I will take that as a complement!
Journalists were introduced to online publication with the promise that it would lead to longer, more in-depth stories. The unlimited online news hole held the promise of posting actual documents that were excerpted by necessity in the stories. Hyperlinking held the promise of allowing readers to lose themselves in the topic, if they so chose, much as people used to skip from definition to definition in the dictionary or entry to entry in the encyclopedia.
Instead of these expanded opportunities, modern journalists are faced with a shrinking market for their skills, as online revenue lags far behind that of print revenue. Page designers are going the way of paste-up workers, typesetters and paginators, jobs lost to the reduced need for their skills.
The uncertain future resulted from ill-advised leaps by newspaper managers across the marketplace into a new and untested realm and from the wholesale abandonment of the product that continues to fund both print and online operations.
Newspaper company executives shifted their product line before they devised a business model or marketing program for the new, online product. That approach doesn't work in any economy, let alone the financial crisis we face today.
So, what you see around you, Chrissy, is a room full of dedicated, hard-working people who are wondering how they got on this course, why they are headed in this direction and why no one is putting on the brakes.
You are seeing the disillusion and despair that comes with grand promises left unkept.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
The opportunities you refer too still exist. More in-depth stories, I like to call Three-D stories, are easier than ever to produce. But, it does take some additional education and training about the workings of the Internet. I work with a creative and intelligent bunch, the training I am speaking of is not over their heads.
Experiments and exploration are happening all around so maybe an solution will be found. And while there may be a shrinking market for print journalism and traditional news sources, there is a growing need by web developers and designers for quality content.
AND journalists are uniquely equipped to work on the web. Many just don't understand the ins and outs.
For example: In many instances a headline is all you see. It is the only advertisement for your story. In no other industry are people trained to write interesting headlines designed to hook a reader.
BTW: THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY BEING MADE ON THE INTERNET (just not by newspapers). Maybe we should start looking at those organizations and what they are doing to produce revenue and plan accordingly.
C
You certainly are right about other organizations making money on the Internet. Google, Yahoo, eBay and Craigslist represent all the things newspapers should have been -- and could have been -- to hold onto their revenue streams. But those are gone.
When I referred to the lost hope of investigative projects and in-depth reporting on the Internet, I am not talking about lost potential. The potential remains. But newspapers are less and less able (and less and less willing) to reach for it.
All the newsroom cuts leave less reporter time for anything but superficial coverage.
Read the main stories on the News-Journal section fronts every day. Most just scrape the surface. Rarely do you find a story that draws from more than two or three sources. And seldom is there even an attempt to delve into the intricacies of complex issues.
And it is the same throughout journalism. Even the giants are doing less.
The emphasis in newsrooms -- as it relates to the Web -- is immediacy. And to reporters and line editors, that means post quickly and update. That approach is great for breaking stories. But you need someone with the time (the luxury) of stepping back and looking at the big picture, placing the events in context and explaining to the readers why they need to read these stories.
When journalism executives decided to grab as much money as they could be issuing stock and going public, newsrooms became slaves to the quarterly report and Wall Street expectations. Stockholders don't care about good journalism. They want a bigger return on investment and quarterly dividends. And a bigger return next quarter and the next.
When executive compensation is tied to such short-term goals, the product is bound to suffer. And it did. And here we are.
So what are you going to do about it?
Let me ask this: If you were on a sinking ship would you stand there pointing your finger at the Captain, or would you grab a bucket and start bailing water?
No one knows the answer to this riddle. What that means to me is that I have just as much chance at figuring out a solution as anyone.
And so do you...
C
Having an answer isn't the answer.
There are zillions of great ideas floating around. But the people with the power are deaf to them. They are lemmings headed for the cliff, falling into the sea to drown.
Journalists need to be thinking about their next careers. It's not that they are reluctant to bail. It's that the buckets all have holes in them.
But you are looking at this wrong. The Internet allows the free flow of ideas. It allows the writer direct access to the audience. You have access to anyone, if you have an idea let it out.
Put your name on it and put it out there, you never know who will find it, like a message in a bottle. Maybe no one will find it, and maybe the one who finds it will toss it back or maybe someone will find your idea and help you make it the next big thing.
Lets start now... tell me your ideas.
Maybe you can redirect the lemmings.